Hello there,
Not exactly replying to the message, but to be honest, this kind of
thing happens quite frequently in the IETF and the documents end up
being published. There are many IETF documents that provide statistics
and/or recommendations, just like the document is being discussed.
I don't see any problem with draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending.
My 2 cents.
Alejandro,
On 16/4/26 9:20 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Apr 15, 2026, at 19:09, Michael McBride <[email protected]>
wrote:
The intent is to document observed behavior and its consequences and to provide
operational guidance. The references to prepending beyond 5 ASNs reflect
commonly observed practice and outcomes rather than a hard threshold.
If there isn't consensus to publish as a BCP perhaps we should move it to
Informational.
I'm generally supportive of publication. I'm ambivalent about the status of
the document. IMO, whatever lets the document advance past the IESG quibbling
on the point.
The core value of the document, in my opinion, is that it discusses an
operational reality that isn't otherwise covered by the normative BGP protocol
RFCs. Namely, that prepending is helpful for traffic engineering but that if
you do too much of it, there are gotchas. And this is where I'd lend my
support for this to the IESG come evaluation time.
The fact that the document can be distilled down to a few key points and the
rest is explainer text is just a side effect of how it's evolved.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
